Miyabi MCP Bundle

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Supports custom tags and no-cache' which adds some behavioral context, but doesn't cover important aspects like whether this is a long-running operation, what permissions are required, whether it modifies existing images, or what happens on failure. For a build tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise - just two brief sentences that get straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently mentions key features.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a Docker build operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (image ID? success/failure?), doesn't mention error conditions, and provides minimal behavioral context. Given the complexity of Docker builds and the lack of structured metadata, the description should do more.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'custom tags and no-cache' which aligns with the 'tag' and 'noCache' parameters but doesn't add meaningful semantic information beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Build') and resource ('Docker image from Dockerfile'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools (like docker_exec or docker_images), but those perform different operations, so sibling differentiation isn't critical here.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling tools list includes other Docker operations, the description doesn't mention when to choose docker_build over other image-related tools or what prerequisites might be needed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.